---
type: claim
domain: energy
description: "53 companies with $9.77B raised but realistic timeline is demos 2026-2028, valley of death 2028-2030, pilot plants 2030-2035, scaling 2035-2045, meaningful grid contribution mid-2040s"
confidence: likely
source: "Astra, fusion power landscape research February 2026; FIA 2025 industry report"
created: 2026-03-20
challenged_by:
- DOE standalone Office of Fusion and national roadmap targeting mid-2030s may compress the valley of death phase
related:
- AI datacenter power demand is creating a fusion buyer market before the technology exists with Google and Eni committing over 1.5 billion dollars in PPAs for unbuilt plants using undemonstrated technology
- AI datacenter power demand is creating a fusion buyer market before the technology exists with Google and Eni signing PPAs for unbuilt plants using undemonstrated technology
- CFS magnet pancake production achieved a 30x speedup from 30 days to 1 day per unit suggesting fusion component manufacturing can follow industrial learning curves even if system integration remains unproven
- Helion and CFS represent genuinely different fusion bets where Helion's field-reversed configuration trades plasma physics risk for engineering simplicity while CFS's tokamak trades engineering complexity for plasma physics confidence
- SPARC construction velocity from 30 days per magnet pancake to 1 per day demonstrates that fusion manufacturing learning curves follow industrial scaling patterns not physics-experiment timelines
- fusions attractor state is 5-15 percent of global generation by 2055 as firm dispatchable complement to renewables not as baseload replacement for fission
- long-duration energy storage beyond 8 hours remains unsolved at scale and is the binding constraint on a fully renewable grid
- plasma-facing materials science is the binding constraint on commercial fusion because no facility exists to test materials under fusion-relevant neutron bombardment for the years needed to qualify them
- private fusion has three credible approaches with independent risk profiles where CFS bets on proven tokamak physics Helion on engineering simplicity and TAE on aneutronic fuel
reweave_edges:
- AI datacenter power demand is creating a fusion buyer market before the technology exists with Google and Eni committing over 1.5 billion dollars in PPAs for unbuilt plants using undemonstrated technology|related|2026-04-17
- AI datacenter power demand is creating a fusion buyer market before the technology exists with Google and Eni signing PPAs for unbuilt plants using undemonstrated technology|related|2026-04-17
- CFS magnet pancake production achieved a 30x speedup from 30 days to 1 day per unit suggesting fusion component manufacturing can follow industrial learning curves even if system integration remains unproven|related|2026-04-17
- Helion and CFS represent genuinely different fusion bets where Helion's field-reversed configuration trades plasma physics risk for engineering simplicity while CFS's tokamak trades engineering complexity for plasma physics confidence|related|2026-04-17
- SPARC construction velocity from 30 days per magnet pancake to 1 per day demonstrates that fusion manufacturing learning curves follow industrial scaling patterns not physics-experiment timelines|related|2026-04-17
- fusions attractor state is 5-15 percent of global generation by 2055 as firm dispatchable complement to renewables not as baseload replacement for fission|related|2026-04-18
- long-duration energy storage beyond 8 hours remains unsolved at scale and is the binding constraint on a fully renewable grid|related|2026-04-18
- plasma-facing materials science is the binding constraint on commercial fusion because no facility exists to test materials under fusion-relevant neutron bombardment for the years needed to qualify them|related|2026-04-19
- private fusion has three credible approaches with independent risk profiles where CFS bets on proven tokamak physics Helion on engineering simplicity and TAE on aneutronic fuel|related|2026-04-19
sourced_from:
- inbox/archive/2026-02-17-astra-fusion-power-landscape.md
---

# Fusion contributing meaningfully to global electricity is a 2040s event at the earliest because 2026-2030 demonstrations must succeed before capital flows to pilot plants that take another decade to build

The Fusion Industry Association's 2025 survey identified 53 companies with cumulative funding of $9.77B and 4,607 direct employees. The industry raised $2.64B in the 12 months to July 2025 — a 178% increase year-over-year, though heavily skewed by Pacific Fusion's $900M raise.

Six factors make this cycle genuinely different from previous "30 years away" periods: HTS magnets enabling compact devices, private capital creating accountability, modern computational simulation compressing R&D, AI/ML tools for plasma control, NRC Part 30 regulatory clarity, and AI data center demand pull creating buyers before products exist.

A seventh factor emerged in late 2025: unprecedented institutional acceleration. DOE created a standalone Office of Fusion (November 2025). DOE released a national "Build-Innovate-Grow" roadmap targeting fusion power on the grid by mid-2030s. $107M in FIRE Collaboratives announced to bridge research gaps. Bipartisan legislation introduced to codify the Office of Fusion.

But the realistic timeline is sequential and each phase gates the next:

**2026-2027:** SPARC first plasma and net energy demonstration. Helion Polaris electricity demo. These are the near-term proof points that determine whether private capital continues flowing.

**2028-2030:** First demonstrations of electricity-producing fusion (if SPARC/Polaris succeed). Pilot plant construction decisions. This is the "valley of death" — capital needs are enormous and revenue is zero.

**2030-2035:** First commercial pilot plants come online (ARC, Helion Orion). Grid electricity from fusion in small quantities. Optimistic scenario only.

**2035-2045:** If pilots succeed, deployment scaling begins. Fusion becomes a measurable fraction of new generation capacity.

By the time fusion plants come online, they compete against solar+storage that has had another decade of cost decline. IEA projects global renewable capacity tripling to 11,000 GW by 2035. Fusion must find niches where its advantages — baseload reliability, energy density, small land footprint, zero carbon — justify a cost premium.

## Challenges

DOE institutional momentum and data center demand pull may compress the timeline. CFS's ARC is fully subscribed at 400 MW before construction begins — the demand side is solved. The question is whether supply-side engineering (materials, tritium, divertor) can match the capital and demand readiness. If SPARC achieves Q>2 in 2027, the valley of death narrows significantly because institutional and private capital is already positioned.

---

Relevant Notes:
- [[high-temperature superconducting magnets collapse tokamak economics because magnetic confinement scales as B to the fourth power making compact fusion devices viable for the first time]] — the enabling technology that makes this cycle different
- [[the gap between scientific breakeven and engineering breakeven is the central deception in fusion hype because wall-plug efficiency turns Q of 1 into net energy loss]] — engineering gaps explain why demos don't immediately lead to commercial plants
- [[knowledge embodiment lag means technology is available decades before organizations learn to use it optimally creating a productivity paradox]] — the 20+ year lag from physics demonstrations to commercial deployment
- [[attractor states provide gravitational reference points for capital allocation during structural industry change]] — fusion is an attractor for clean firm power but the timeline is longer than most investors expect

Topics:
- energy systems